Upgrade from GM5 to OM-1?

grey0135 said:

I currently use a GM5 (and backup GM1) for family and travel photography, along with a Sony RX1R. I occasionally print big but mainly print for use in coffee table size photo books (Blurb via Lightroom). I use both the Panasonic 2.8 zoom lenses and a variety of non-pro primes. I'm considering the purchase of an OM-1. I used to own an EM5 mark 1 so I'm comfortable with Olympus, although there are obvious drawbacks to using multiple systems.

Click to expand...

I'll respond from the perspective of the E-M1iii compared to GM5 and E-M5, all of which I have. Adjust for added OM-1 capabilities, accordingly, mine's back-ordered.

grey0135 said:

Does this purchase really make sense? My primary complaints regarding my current set up are:

* Low light image quality on the GM5 is fine with the primes but lacking with the 2.8 zooms. Is the jump in sensor and processor performance from the GM5 to the OM-1 significant enough to bridge that gap to a significant degree? As a practical matter, how much real improvement in noise performance is there? Aside from ISO performance, one obvious benefit of the Olympus would be image stabilization with prime lenses. The RX1R has great low light image quality but I'm limited to the 35mm focal length, and I have no interest in upgrading to a bulkier full frame system.

Click to expand...

Moving to the 20MP sensor generation and newer processors works wonders on low-light focus, taming noise, retaining color, accessing higher ISOs (specifically, 6400 is perfectly usable with proper exposure and processing). And the newest IBIS versus, well, no IBIS is reason enough. My ability to handhold a 150mm zoom in dim light with the GM5 is demonstrably poor (lots of experience here) while no problem whatever with good IBIS.

These features aren't gadgets, they are productivity tools.

grey0135 said:

* Autofocus and buffer: I have a 3 year old and a 5 year old who never sit still. I've learn to "manage," but the autofocus on the GM5 and the RX1R is less than ideal for this purpose. Leaving aside the lab testing, would i see significant real performance by upgrading to an OM-1? Another issue for me is the small buffer size on the GM5 (it only lasts a few shots when shooting RAW), but I think it's easy to say base on the specs that the OM-1 (or any modern m43 camera) would be an improvement.

Click to expand...

Another night/day comparison. GM5 AF-C does work to some extent, but compared to the E-M1 series and certainly the OM1, is rudimentary and not up to challenging action scenarios. There's also the modest frame rate to consider compared with...maybe nobody will use 120fps (versus 6) but pick a value and you can have it. Buffer now is essentially unlimited using a good UHS-II card.

Don't overlook the wacky 1/500 top mechanical shutter speed from the GM5's one-curtain shutter. You instantly acquire a 1/8000 mechanical shutter top speed, plus a usable e-shutter with little rolling shutter effect.

grey0135 said:

BTW, I'm not planning on ditching the GM5; the camera is incredibly pocketable when matched with a small prime (particularly the 20mm and 45mm). But it does have its limitations...

Click to expand...

Same. I'll keep the tiny GM5 for when I want the smallest, most discreet camera possible. It's a lovely gadget that subjects (and gate security) hardly even notice.

Side note that mastering a vastly more complex camera will take time, and perhaps require some "un-learning" old habits. It will be worth it.

Cheers,

Rick

--

Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

grey0135 said:

Does this purchase really make sense? My primary complaints regarding my current set up are:

* Autofocus and buffer: I have a 3 year old and a 5 year old who never sit still. I've learn to "manage," but the autofocus on the GM5 and the RX1R is less than ideal for this purpose. Leaving aside the lab testing, would i see significant real performance by upgrading to an OM-1? Another issue for me is the small buffer size on the GM5 (it only lasts a few shots when shooting RAW), but I think it's easy to say base on the specs that the OM-1 (or any modern m43 camera) would be an improvement.

BTW, I'm not planning on ditching the GM5; the camera is incredibly pocketable when matched with a small prime (particularly the 20mm and 45mm). But it does have its limitations...

Click to expand...

The OM-1 can certainly handle your needs, but it may be overkill.

You are clearly used to smaller bodies, so you might look at the E-M5 iii. It is a huge improvement from the 5.1 that you had.

Another option would be the E-M1 iii. Its significant improvement in eye/face auto-focus would help keeping up with your children.

GLWP

If you want the ultimate step up, regardless of cost, then it makes sense. I have GM1/GF7/GX80/G80/G9, sold my GM5 when I bought the GX80. I have a 3.5-year-old granddaughter, yes, they can move. A decent prime and touch screen focus'n'shoot on the GMs does pretty well as long as it's not too dim.

A G80 would give a noticeable improvement, the G9 a massive improvement; both at quite low cost. The OM-1, which I expect to buy for BIFs, when prices drop, might be overkill for children but would be capable of covering any imaginable future usage.

grey0135 said:

I currently use a GM5 (and backup GM1) for family and travel photography, along with a Sony RX1R. I occasionally print big but mainly print for use in coffee table size photo books (Blurb via Lightroom). I use both the Panasonic 2.8 zoom lenses and a variety of non-pro primes. I'm considering the purchase of an OM-1. I used to own an EM5 mark 1 so I'm comfortable with Olympus, although there are obvious drawbacks to using multiple systems.

Does this purchase really make sense? My primary complaints regarding my current set up are:

* Low light image quality on the GM5 is fine with the primes but lacking with the 2.8 zooms. Is the jump in sensor and processor performance from the GM5 to the OM-1 significant enough to bridge that gap to a significant degree? As a practical matter, how much real improvement in noise performance is there? Aside from ISO performance, one obvious benefit of the Olympus would be image stabilization with prime lenses. The RX1R has great low light image quality but I'm limited to the 35mm focal length, and I have no interest in upgrading to a bulkier full frame system.

* Autofocus and buffer: I have a 3 year old and a 5 year old who never sit still. I've learn to "manage," but the autofocus on the GM5 and the RX1R is less than ideal for this purpose. Leaving aside the lab testing, would i see significant real performance by upgrading to an OM-1? Another issue for me is the small buffer size on the GM5 (it only lasts a few shots when shooting RAW), but I think it's easy to say base on the specs that the OM-1 (or any modern m43 camera) would be an improvement.

BTW, I'm not planning on ditching the GM5; the camera is incredibly pocketable when matched with a small prime (particularly the 20mm and 45mm). But it does have its limitations...

Click to expand...

You've answered your own reasons... the OM-1 is the upgrade to when your current gear has limitations... and your old gear will keep doing the job for when it doesn't have limitations.

--
Addicted To Glass
M43 equivalence: "Twice the fun with half the weight"
"You are a long time dead" -
Credit to whoever said that first and my wife for saying it to me... Make the best you can of every day!

grey0135 said:

I currently use a GM5 (and backup GM1) for family and travel photography, along with a Sony RX1R. I occasionally print big but mainly print for use in coffee table size photo books (Blurb via Lightroom). I use both the Panasonic 2.8 zoom lenses and a variety of non-pro primes. I'm considering the purchase of an OM-1. I used to own an EM5 mark 1 so I'm comfortable with Olympus, although there are obvious drawbacks to using multiple systems.

Does this purchase really make sense? My primary complaints regarding my current set up are:

* Low light image quality on the GM5 is fine with the primes but lacking with the 2.8 zooms. Is the jump in sensor and processor performance from the GM5 to the OM-1 significant enough to bridge that gap to a significant degree? As a practical matter, how much real improvement in noise performance is there? Aside from ISO performance, one obvious benefit of the Olympus would be image stabilization with prime lenses. The RX1R has great low light image quality but I'm limited to the 35mm focal length, and I have no interest in upgrading to a bulkier full frame system.

* Autofocus and buffer: I have a 3 year old and a 5 year old who never sit still. I've learn to "manage," but the autofocus on the GM5 and the RX1R is less than ideal for this purpose. Leaving aside the lab testing, would i see significant real performance by upgrading to an OM-1? Another issue for me is the small buffer size on the GM5 (it only lasts a few shots when shooting RAW), but I think it's easy to say base on the specs that the OM-1 (or any modern m43 camera) would be an improvement.

BTW, I'm not planning on ditching the GM5; the camera is incredibly pocketable when matched with a small prime (particularly the 20mm and 45mm). But it does have its limitations...

Click to expand...

The IQ is better, much cleaner, less blotchy, the AF is amazingly fast, and the EVF is superb.

grey0135 said:

I currently use a GM5 (and backup GM1) for family and travel photography, along with a Sony RX1R. I occasionally print big but mainly print for use in coffee table size photo books (Blurb via Lightroom). I use both the Panasonic 2.8 zoom lenses and a variety of non-pro primes. I'm considering the purchase of an OM-1. I used to own an EM5 mark 1 so I'm comfortable with Olympus, although there are obvious drawbacks to using multiple systems.

Does this purchase really make sense?

Click to expand...

No.

grey0135 said:

My primary complaints regarding my current set up are:

* Low light image quality on the GM5 is fine with the primes but lacking with the 2.8 zooms. Is the jump in sensor and processor performance from the GM5 to the OM-1 significant enough to bridge that gap to a significant degree? As a practical matter, how much real improvement in noise performance is there?

Click to expand...

That's been under heavy discussion . Looks like there's a modest improvement. Others claim bigger improvement.

grey0135 said:

Aside from ISO performance, one obvious benefit of the Olympus would be image stabilization with prime lenses. The RX1R has great low light image quality but I'm limited to the 35mm focal length, and I have no interest in upgrading to a bulkier full frame system.

* Autofocus and buffer: I have a 3 year old and a 5 year old who never sit still. I've learn to "manage," but the autofocus on the GM5 and the RX1R is less than ideal for this purpose. Leaving aside the lab testing, would i see significant real performance by upgrading to an OM-1? Another issue for me is the small buffer size on the GM5 (it only lasts a few shots when shooting RAW), but I think it's easy to say base on the specs that the OM-1 (or any modern m43 camera) would be an improvement.

Click to expand...

Buffer and AF are vastly improved on OM-1 over GM5.

grey0135 said:

BTW, I'm not planning on ditching the GM5; the camera is incredibly pocketable when matched with a small prime (particularly the 20mm and 45mm). But it does have its limitations...

Click to expand...

The reason I say it doesn't make sense is becuase you are considering it an upgrade, but you are going from a pocketable wonder to a camera that is not even jacket pocketable.

So I would think long and hard first if you think you will really be carrying the OM1 around considering you are used to GM5/RX1 class sizes. That's the reason why I say it doesn't make sense.

Any MFT body with the old Sony 20Mpix sensor back to the EM1.2 will have about the same modest but visible IQ improvement over the GM5. In terms of RAW IQ the OM1 has a small advantage at high ISO over an EM1.2 (EM1.3, EM1X, EM5.3), so small that many people can’t see it.

If you want to quickly share jpegs, the in camera AI noise reduction of the OM1 is a big advantage, and the free OMDS RAW processor has it too. It’s not as good as DeepPrime but beats anything I can do with C1 v22.

The OM1 is a great camera. I just ordered one this morning to replace an EM1.2. The estimated delivery time in the U.K. is currently “many months”. Best stills MFT body.

None of the advanced features of the OM1 are required for what you say you expect to use it for. You are adding weight and cost to get an OM1 over other options.

The G9 is currently the best value MFT body with good IQ, but big, big. The EM5.3 is the most advanced small MFT camera, provided you don’t shoot on a tripod. The GX9 is the smallest with a 20Mpix sensor. A used EM1.2 is great value, smaller than the OM1 and pretty capable.

If I wanted people tracking and EyeEF, I’d use my Sony. If you like small, that would be an A7C with 28-60 kit. If you want better IQ and more subject isolation, an A7iv with Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2.

There is every chance that a firmware upgrade of the OM1 will add better people recognition. In fact I’m counting on it.

So, whether the OM1 is best for you depends on your priorities.

Andrew

Thanks everyone for the comments. It looks like the OM-1 brings some IQ benefit over the GM5 and much improved autofocus, but perhaps the OM-1 is overkill?

I still love the pocketability of the GM5, but now that I have children, having a pocket camera I can take with me on a night out is not quiet as important as it used to be... I often carry my camera in a small bag (like the excellent Billingham Stowaway Pola) or in a larger catch-all bag if I'm out with familty or on a trip, and at that point, size is not quite as much of an issue. And when I need it, I still have the GM5/1 with 20mm lens. That said, I still prefer smaller cameras - I used to have both the original EM5 and a G1 years ago, and much preferred the EM5. For that reason, I haven't seriously considered upgrading to a G9 or any of the versions of the EM1.

I flirted with upgrading to an EM5 miii a year ago for improved autofocus, but based on several reviews (including DPREVIEW), it seemed to me that autofocus on the EM5 iii was not nearly as good as the EM1 miii or the EM1X. Do any new OM-1 owners have any experience with the autofocus of the EM5 iii, particularly with shooting children?

My oldest child, in particular, is very athletic, so I'm thinking that spending a bit more money on the OM-1 might make sense. If the camera is good enough to serve me for the next 5 years or so (as the GM1/GM5 have), then the extra premium might be worth it.

grey0135 said:

My oldest child, in particular, is very athletic, so I'm thinking that spending a bit more money on the OM-1 might make sense. If the camera is good enough to serve me for the next 5 years or so (as the GM1/GM5 have), then the extra premium might be worth it.

Click to expand...

Importantly, the E-M1iii and OM-1 have the newest eye and face detection, which is worlds better than the older version. No other model has it.

If you think you'll be chasing kids racing around a soccer field, etc. then either of these is certainly not "too much" camera--I've been doing sports since my kid was four and she's now in college. As they get faster and fields get larger, the challenges go up steeply and this system is now very competent in that arena.

Either an E-M1iii or OM1 will keep you going for quite awhile, and you can start dreaming of lenses. The OM1 will be the most future-proof, supported the longest and the most likely to receive meaningful firmware updates.

My $0.02,

Rick

I have the GM5 & love it. I can carry it with a small tele zoom, extra battery, the (baby) flash, & several filters in a small fanny pack. However, action shots are not its strong suit. My Oly OM-1ii is great for that. Only problem is that the controls & menu systems are very different. Going from one camera to the other leads to fumbling & missed shots. You may be happier with one of Panasonic's fine cameras - the GX9, GH5, or GH6. My only real complaint with the OM-1ii is the massively complex menu system.

Skeeterbytes said:

grey0135 said:

I currently use a GM5 (and backup GM1) for family and travel photography, along with a Sony RX1R. I occasionally print big but mainly print for use in coffee table size photo books (Blurb via Lightroom). I use both the Panasonic 2.8 zoom lenses and a variety of non-pro primes. I'm considering the purchase of an OM-1. I used to own an EM5 mark 1 so I'm comfortable with Olympus, although there are obvious drawbacks to using multiple systems.

Click to expand...

I'll respond from the perspective of the E-M1iii compared to GM5 and E-M5, all of which I have. Adjust for added OM-1 capabilities, accordingly, mine's back-ordered.

Skeeterbytes said:

Does this purchase really make sense? My primary complaints regarding my current set up are:

* Low light image quality on the GM5 is fine with the primes but lacking with the 2.8 zooms. Is the jump in sensor and processor performance from the GM5 to the OM-1 significant enough to bridge that gap to a significant degree? As a practical matter, how much real improvement in noise performance is there? Aside from ISO performance, one obvious benefit of the Olympus would be image stabilization with prime lenses. The RX1R has great low light image quality but I'm limited to the 35mm focal length, and I have no interest in upgrading to a bulkier full frame system.

Click to expand...

Moving to the 20MP sensor generation and newer processors works wonders on low-light focus, taming noise, retaining color, accessing higher ISOs (specifically, 6400 is perfectly usable with proper exposure and processing). And the newest IBIS versus, well, no IBIS is reason enough. My ability to handhold a 150mm zoom in dim light with the GM5 is demonstrably poor (lots of experience here) while no problem whatever with good IBIS.

These features aren't gadgets, they are productivity tools.

Skeeterbytes said:

* Autofocus and buffer: I have a 3 year old and a 5 year old who never sit still. I've learn to "manage," but the autofocus on the GM5 and the RX1R is less than ideal for this purpose. Leaving aside the lab testing, would i see significant real performance by upgrading to an OM-1? Another issue for me is the small buffer size on the GM5 (it only lasts a few shots when shooting RAW), but I think it's easy to say base on the specs that the OM-1 (or any modern m43 camera) would be an improvement.

Click to expand...

Another night/day comparison. GM5 AF-C does work to some extent, but compared to the E-M1 series and certainly the OM1, is rudimentary and not up to challenging action scenarios. There's also the modest frame rate to consider compared with...maybe nobody will use 120fps (versus 6) but pick a value and you can have it. Buffer now is essentially unlimited using a good UHS-II card.

Don't overlook the wacky 1/500 top mechanical shutter speed from the GM5's one-curtain shutter. You instantly acquire a 1/8000 mechanical shutter top speed, plus a usable e-shutter with little rolling shutter effect.

Skeeterbytes said:

BTW, I'm not planning on ditching the GM5; the camera is incredibly pocketable when matched with a small prime (particularly the 20mm and 45mm). But it does have its limitations...

Click to expand...

Same. I'll keep the tiny GM5 for when I want the smallest, most discreet camera possible. It's a lovely gadget that subjects (and gate security) hardly even notice.

Side note that mastering a vastly more complex camera will take time, and perhaps require some "un-learning" old habits. It will be worth it.

Cheers,

Rick

Click to expand...

Very fair but the GM5 S-AF is quite acceptable and I don’t have an issue with the very fast GM5 electronic shutter in itself.

The OM-1 is on another planet as fas as a camera body is concerned as it has a newer sensor and quite a few years technical development behind it. One could say much the same thing about the G9.

One could also say that the tiny body of the GM5 also makes it a much easier travel camera to pack than any other of the M4/3 bodies other than its near sibling the GM1.

Also if the GM5 is used with image stabilised lenses the gap between the GM5 and an IBIS body is significantly narrowed as far as low light shooting is concerned.

There is nothing inherently bad about image stabilised lenses compared to IBIS although the arguments over stops of light and stabilising motion could be debated with some heat.

When I take an image I try to keep my gear as steady as possible no matter what IBIS or lens IS is in play.

But in the end the OM-1 is 2022 technology and the GM5 is more like 2014.

But there is nothing about in 2022 technology that even gets anywhere near the compact size of the GM5.

Probably the best answer. I still find that my GM5 bodies are the camera that I reach for most often even though I have larger more powerful bodies such as the G9 and GX9.

An OM-1 would be more like ‘a when the going is tougher alternative’ than a replacement for the GM5.

Fast moving children have always been as much as a skills challenge as ‘a fixit with a superior camera body’ issue.

Unless cost is no object I'd consider getting a used E-M1 ii now and an OM-1 later. You can buy some nice glass for the cost difference.

I started with an E-M1 i. Added an E-M10 ii and a GM5. Most recently (a couple years ago) I replaced the E-M1 i with an E-M1 ii.

Personally, I find the GM5 a mixed bag. Great for times I want a small, light, inconspicuous camera and/or want to be able to shoot one-handed. But I don't use it for anything especially challenging, especially not in bright sunlight. Even with the accessory eyecup the viewfinder isn't nearly as easy to use (without it I find using the EVF in sunlight a PITA). The controls are also much smaller and much harder to adjust on the fly. And, of course, no IS and noticeably worse IQ.

The IS on even the EM-1 ii was far better than that on the original EM-1 or the E-M10 ii. I can shoot clear multi-second exposures handheld, and I'm not that steady. The ergonomics are excellent. Considerably larger, but especially with the heavier lenses the grip is very nice to have. Used they're now, what, $500? A tremendous buy for $500. An E-M1 iii will run at least $900, so quite a bit more for what appears to be a marginal improvement. I'm planning to wait until OM-1s are available at a price I like.

An E-M10 or E-M5 does have most of the benefits of the E-M1, with a more compact body and less weight. I don't know how good the IQ and IS are on the latest ones, but definitely more versatile than the GM5.

The neat thing with the GM5 is I can clip to to the strap of my E-M1 and have two bodies with the second one barely noticeable. I bought the Laowa 4mm--which requires a body with no grip--and often hike or do street shooting with either the Laowa or the PL 15 on the GM5.

I use the E-M10 ii least of all. But for situations where I want two camera bodies with good ergonomics (or three bodies), it's handy to have. If you shoot with primes it is nice to have multiple bodies to cut back on the number of lens swaps.

Just wondering, which clip do you use to clip your GM to the strap? Sounds like something I might try.

grey0135 said:

Just wondering, which clip do you use to clip your GM to the strap? Sounds like something I might try.

Click to expand...

I have used a clip on a belt loop (possible) or through a ‘D’ ring on a belt (recommended) and a suitable clip like the type that attach key-rings. On the camera body you just need a tripod plug with a strong metal loop that can click into your attached belt clip. I made my preference with a ‘claw’ type clip that allows the back of the camera to ride flat against the body for smooth-carry convenience. Smaller lenses are no worry and even larger lenses are ok for those who have ‘both hands needed’ moments.

Small wrist straps ok (essential) and obviously no need for a neck strap.

The D ring on belt has the advantage of allowing the lip to ride up around the outer part of the ‘D’ shape comfortably when you sit. With the right type of clip it can be released with a single hand.

I have used this arrangement for years with no issues. You can walk about (stride) comfortably with the GM5 hanging there quit securely but perhaps running is not recommended. But I can sit in a vehicle belted up with the camera securely attached and ready for action when I alight.

Be careful to shield the camera when passing solid objects as with this arrangement you are wider than you might otherwise expect.

With a clip on each hip you can even use two GM5 cameras simultaneously each with a different lens if you are advanced (grin) enough as you just click one on to the spare clip and release the other from its hanger on the other side. No more lens changing juggles in the field and no need to rest your camera somewhere while you do so.

This arrangement can even work with larger RF-style bodies such as the GX9 as a temporary place to hang a camera when you need hands free. But of course there are limits to what weight you can reasonably hang from your belt.

If you want to spend a lot of money.

If you want to wait a long time to get your camera.

If you want a larger camera body.

Otherwise, the E-M5 III or even E-M1 II are much cheaper options that will improve your photos. And that can be gotten today. And that can be gotten used for a lot less money.

Money that could be used to get a lens or two that help improve your low light and IQ performance.

john isaacs said:

If you want to spend a lot of money.

If you want to wait a long time to get your camera.

If you want a larger camera body.

Otherwise, the E-M5 III or even E-M1 II are much cheaper options that will improve your photos. And that can be gotten today. And that can be gotten used for a lot less money.

Money that could be used to get a lens or two that help improve your low light and IQ performance.

Click to expand...

I think that is sound advice John, I don't deny being tempted by the latest and greatest cameras But the reality is there are very few of the advances in these high end new bodies that are at all relevant to me . I would like better IBIS for video and a pixel shift mode to dabble with compared to my much loved GX8 { though it will not be going anywhere }

So there are a lot less expensive models that will satisfy what I need though the GH6 and OM1 do look to be great bits of kit. If I could get over the plastic bum on the EM5 III it actually ticks a lot of boxes

--
Jim Stirling:
It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true” Russell
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

grey0135 said:

Just wondering, which clip do you use to clip your GM to the strap? Sounds like something I might try.

Click to expand...

I use it on a peak design strap, but it should work on any similar strap--they show it being used on a backpack strap.

With your stated requirements, I'd be inclined to go with a later version of the A7. It’s about the same size as an OM1, some of the new primes are “small”er. The sensor is a substantial improvement. The AF on my RX100m6, I believe, is 2 generations behind current Sony, yet buries my GX9, GM1 or X100V combining both speed, lock and accuracy. If you prefer small bodies (I do), the newer RX100's are amazing. Up to iso1600 they hold up very well against my GX9's 20mp sensor.

I understood your comment about avoiding bulkier FF systems. However, the OM1 can hardly be considered small and it’s the FF zooms that are the bulk problem vs an OM1. It sounds like you're already a prime shooter with some zooms that are not meeting your standards. All in all, I think you're going from 1 to perhaps 4 when you could be going to 10 for the sake of a few ounces with a well chosen lens system. And for about the same amount of money.